Post by RadioSpirit on Feb 8, 2012 11:51:45 GMT -5

The whole "If you don't vote, you can't complain" is such an insane myth.

The Voting Illusion leads people to believe that by voting they are somehow fulfilling their political citizenship duties, despite the fact that nobody has ever influenced anything with their one vote. We live in a nation of 350 million people, even if you live in a swing state, your one vote can't do shit. There are plenty of ways people can get involved in politics and have a voice, but voting isn't really one of them. Participating in voter registration drives or Get Out the Vote efforts can be effective, but the person who goes to the booth every 2-4 years and votes and somehow thinks he/she has accomplished more than a person who sat on their ass and watched the results is dead wrong.

Post by RadioSpirit on Feb 8, 2012 11:55:21 GMT -5

Also, Obama had a Democratic Congress for just as long (technically longer) as he has had a Republican Congress, so I think it's inaccurate to blame any failures you might see with his Presidency on the inability to work with Congress.

Also, the President is supposed to work with Congress just as much as Congress is supposed to work with the President. If they can't cooperate, that's a failure of Obama's leadership just as much as it is a failure of Congress' duties. Clinton never had too much trouble working with a Republican Congress, plenty of stuff got done during his Presidency.

Post by Zapolleus on Feb 8, 2012 13:13:28 GMT -5

You do have a right to complain, because if you think your vote matters you're just fooling yourself. They're predetermined, and these Republican debates have been clown shows. Ron Paul is the only one making sense up there.

Post by jpbrez on Feb 8, 2012 13:54:52 GMT -5

The whole "If you don't vote, you can't complain" is such an insane myth.

The Voting Illusion leads people to believe that by voting they are somehow fulfilling their political citizenship duties, despite the fact that nobody has ever influenced anything with their one vote. We live in a nation of 350 million people, even if you live in a swing state, your one vote can't do poop. There are plenty of ways people can get involved in politics and have a voice, but voting isn't really one of them. Participating in voter registration drives or Get Out the Vote efforts can be effective, but the person who goes to the booth every 2-4 years and votes and somehow thinks he/she has accomplished more than a person who sat on their ass and watched the results is dead wrong.

I don't see the logic in this. Voting is what elects people into office.It's just obvious to me that the person who goes into the booth and votes has accomplished more than the person who sat on their ass and did nothing. Sure the voice of a single vote is small, very small, but its something. And it counts towards something bigger. The person that doesn't vote has contributed absolutely nothing.

I can understand the appeal of not voting. You are not voting because you are not happy with any of the candidates put forth. You will not participate in this childish, shallow school-yard game of name-calling by liars, snakes, and crazies. But to me if you can't scale candidates on likeability or electability, because they are all smurfs, then you can scale them on unlikeability or unelectability, and you can cast a vote for the least evil smurf.

To not vote means to not care or to not acknowledge the democracy you live in. If you don't vote then yeah you have contributed nothing to the voice of the people. And you let people that do vote decide the direction of the next 4 years. If you did not vote and you are not happy with the way things have been going, then you are not happy with the choice everyone else made for you. So then you should just go back to not caring, because that's what you originally decided to do.

so if you are able to vote, in a primary or general election, you should- just to have your opinion tallied and taken into consideration with others who feel the same way- whether your opinion is the one the majority decided on or not- there will always be people that share your opinion.

Post by jhammett on Feb 8, 2012 14:14:36 GMT -5

For what it's worth, I voted for Ron Paul in 2008 (voted for him in the Primary, wrote him in for GE), and I plan to do the same thing this year. I think he could actually, temporarily fix a few things.

Post by RadioSpirit on Feb 8, 2012 16:48:43 GMT -5

I don't see the logic in this. Voting is what elects people into office.It's just obvious to me that the person who goes into the booth and votes has accomplished more than the person who sat on their ass and did nothing. Sure the voice of a single vote is small, very small, but its something. And it counts towards something bigger. The person that doesn't vote has contributed absolutely nothing.

I can understand the appeal of not voting. You are not voting because you are not happy with any of the candidates put forth. You will not participate in this childish, shallow school-yard game of name-calling by liars, snakes, and crazies. But to me if you can't scale candidates on likeability or electability, because they are all smurfs, then you can scale them on unlikeability or unelectability, and you can cast a vote for the least evil smurf.

To not vote means to not care or to not acknowledge the democracy you live in. If you don't vote then yeah you have contributed nothing to the voice of the people. And you let people that do vote decide the direction of the next 4 years. If you did not vote and you are not happy with the way things have been going, then you are not happy with the choice everyone else made for you. So then you should just go back to not caring, because that's what you originally decided to do.

so if you are able to vote, in a primary or general election, you should- just to have your opinion tallied and taken into consideration with others who feel the same way- whether your opinion is the one the majority decided on or not- there will always be people that share your opinion.

Let me preface by saying that I actually do vote. Not just in major elections either, but primaries, run-offs, city/county sh*t, everything.

But I also don't act like my voting somehow makes me better than those who don't, because from a completely rational perspective, neither voting nor not-voting acheives anything. Nothing will ever change because you voted on it, except maybe at some city council, school board thing that only you and 20 other people showed up to.

If you want to argue that there is a symbolic quality to voting, exercising your freedom that past generations have fought/died for, expressing your stake in your country, etc, then that's one thing. I certainly agree with all of that, and it's probably why I do vote. Along with the fact that it's hard to encourage other people to be active when some might perceive hypocrisy through me not voting.

I had a college PoliSci professor who told us that he never voted. He volunteered, worked on campaigns, donated time and money, influenced his friends, and was very deeply involved with politics, but never voted, because he recognized that from a rational standpoint, it was a waste of time.Are you telling me that the guy who votes every 4 years and then sits around and complains the rest of the time but doesn't do anything else is somehow contributing more than that professor? Because you're wrong. Voting produces a false sense of accomplishment and superiority in people.

The person sitting on their ass on election day and the person in the booth have actually had the exact same effect on the results. Maybe the person in the booth "accomplished" more because of the symbolic nature of his action, but that's it.

Also, to say that you should vote to "have your opinion tallied or taken into consideration" doesn't make much sense based on our election system. This isn't a deliberative or proportional democracy. The side with the most votes wins and no other result is "taken into consideration". They don't say "Well, this guy lost but he got some votes, so we should use some of his ideas." And you can't really argue that your one vote makes any losing candidate's ultimate outcome look any better. What's the difference between losing with 235,647 votes or 235,648 votes? None.

Post by Gibran on Feb 8, 2012 17:10:21 GMT -5

There is a difference between not voting because you do not care and not voting because you refuse to settle for the lesser of two evils. That is not acceptable to me anymore. I choose not to vote but devote time and energy to fighting for changes that will lead to a viable candidate actually running for office. In my opinion that is fighting for the greater good, instead of voting for the least evil person. That, to me, sends a message that we are OK with it. I, for one, am not. Not anymore. I do this because I believe that the two parties that have full control over the election process are completely compromised and equally worthless. It makes very little difference who is in office to me since they are both bought and paid for before day one in office. I choose to fight for a fix that will make a bigger difference in the future instead of settling for the status quo.

Post by jpbrez on Feb 8, 2012 22:34:11 GMT -5

I don't see the logic in this. Voting is what elects people into office.It's just obvious to me that the person who goes into the booth and votes has accomplished more than the person who sat on their ass and did nothing. Sure the voice of a single vote is small, very small, but its something. And it counts towards something bigger. The person that doesn't vote has contributed absolutely nothing.

I can understand the appeal of not voting. You are not voting because you are not happy with any of the candidates put forth. You will not participate in this childish, shallow school-yard game of name-calling by liars, snakes, and crazies. But to me if you can't scale candidates on likeability or electability, because they are all smurfs, then you can scale them on unlikeability or unelectability, and you can cast a vote for the least evil smurf.

To not vote means to not care or to not acknowledge the democracy you live in. If you don't vote then yeah you have contributed nothing to the voice of the people. And you let people that do vote decide the direction of the next 4 years. If you did not vote and you are not happy with the way things have been going, then you are not happy with the choice everyone else made for you. So then you should just go back to not caring, because that's what you originally decided to do.

so if you are able to vote, in a primary or general election, you should- just to have your opinion tallied and taken into consideration with others who feel the same way- whether your opinion is the one the majority decided on or not- there will always be people that share your opinion.

Let me preface by saying that I actually do vote. Not just in major elections either, but primaries, run-offs, city/county sh*t, everything.

But I also don't act like my voting somehow makes me better than those who don't, because from a completely rational perspective, neither voting nor not-voting acheives anything. Nothing will ever change because you voted on it, except maybe at some city council, school board thing that only you and 20 other people showed up to.

If you want to argue that there is a symbolic quality to voting, exercising your freedom that past generations have fought/died for, expressing your stake in your country, etc, then that's one thing. I certainly agree with all of that, and it's probably why I do vote. Along with the fact that it's hard to encourage other people to be active when some might perceive hypocrisy through me not voting.

I had a college PoliSci professor who told us that he never voted. He volunteered, worked on campaigns, donated time and money, influenced his friends, and was very deeply involved with politics, but never voted, because he recognized that from a rational standpoint, it was a waste of time.Are you telling me that the guy who votes every 4 years and then sits around and complains the rest of the time but doesn't do anything else is somehow contributing more than that professor? Because you're wrong. Voting produces a false sense of accomplishment and superiority in people.

The person sitting on their ass on election day and the person in the booth have actually had the exact same effect on the results. Maybe the person in the booth "accomplished" more because of the symbolic nature of his action, but that's it.

Also, to say that you should vote to "have your opinion tallied or taken into consideration" doesn't make much sense based on our election system. This isn't a deliberative or proportional democracy. The side with the most votes wins and no other result is "taken into consideration". They don't say "Well, this guy lost but he got some votes, so we should use some of his ideas." And you can't really argue that your one vote makes any losing candidate's ultimate outcome look any better. What's the difference between losing with 235,647 votes or 235,648 votes? None.

I'm not trying to say that someone who votes is better than someone who doesn't. Not at all.

But this -

"Are you telling me that the guy who votes every 4 years and then sits around and complains the rest of the time but doesn't do anything else is somehow contributing more than that professor? "

this is almost going against completely what I was saying. I'm saying that the person that votes every four years but does nothing else is only a step up from the person that does absolutely nothing -no voting, no research, no awareness, no volunteering or campaign aide. (the person that is completely uninvested in policits but still complains that President Obama (or whoever) is a terrible president. Yes, there are a lot of people like that.

I'm not going to preach about the importance of voting, except for the fact that yes it is important. If you choose not to vote because you see no rational point in it (your professor) or you don't agree with being forced to choose the lesser of two evils (Gibran) that's your business and I won't get on your ass about that.

My point is that when you vote, your voice- your opinion on correct or incorrect political stances- is put towards a majority of other people and builds on the majority. - and if you are going to voice your opinion on politics to other people, complaining about so-in-so- but didn't bother(not the same thing as a decision to withstand) to voice your opinion through our system of democracy.

I just think that going around saying it's ok to not vote because it is a waste of time is sending a terrible message, especially to youth these days who could seem to give two sh*ts about who is running their country. It took me forever to get my 18 year old brother to decide to vote. What sold him was getting him to watch the debates with me and he straight up goes "Ok I like Ron Paul and hate Romney and his stupid jerkoff smirk he does, I'm going to vote for Ron Paul."

Post by Dave Maynar on Feb 9, 2012 6:29:30 GMT -5

Update from my co-workers:

"The definition of a Socialist is a person who pushes social programs. Obama is an advocate of social programs, so labeling him a Socialist fits. It's just the perspective of him and his staff that make that label out to be people attacking him."

Post by Dan'ROO on Feb 9, 2012 21:51:37 GMT -5

I'm a registered voter but I do not vote. I don't believe I should have to choose the lesser of two evils to be the head of my country. It's my small, tiny, insignificant form of protest against the broken machine that is our government.Give me a candidate that is honest (I know, I've already asked fer way too much) and I will vote fer them. Just tell me to my face, "Hey, I'm gonna make some promises I won't keep. I'm gonna make some decisions completely opposite of the platform I ran on. I will lie to you, America." Tell me you're a liar, and I'll believe you speak the truth!

Post by A$AP Rosko on Feb 20, 2012 8:59:00 GMT -5

Obama's got a second term all locked up as long as Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich keep on talkin' (courtesy Seth Meyers/Weekend Update/SNL).

Honestly, I don't wanna get into it really because I absolutely hate talking politics, but I think Obama has been a pretty decent president and I think he'll be a muuuuuuuuch better president over the next four years then either Romney or Gingrich or (god forbid) Rick Santorum. Only way I would even consider not voting for him would be if Paul wins the Republican nomination, which won't happen.

Post by Dave Maynar on Feb 20, 2012 9:50:44 GMT -5

Presidencies are often decided by the centrist voters who are willing to vote either Democrat or Republican. Santorum's ultra-conservative views on social issues will not get him a lot of votes from this group of voters, and that's if he even gets the nomination which I don't think will happen because when it comes to crunch time, I think Republican primary voters will break for electability which will pull voters to Romney.

Post by on Feb 20, 2012 9:59:44 GMT -5

I know some of you probably saw this already, but I'm very impressed with what the two candidates for Senate in Mass. are doing to try and ensure that they get a "clean" race.

For those that don't know, Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren created a "poison pill" agreement regarding negative ads. Neither was sanctioning the muck-slinging ads that were being aired against the opponent, so they agreed that if there are any ads of that nature, the candidate who the ad supported would donate $ out of their own pocket equal in value to the ad in question.

So, if ultra-conservatives paid $1 million to take out an ad slamming Warren, Brown would donate $1 million to a charity.

I was very impressed with how these two took the power away from faceless lobbyist groups, and hope this sets a trend for the future. I doubt it, because it's too good an idea, but there's at least hope.

Post by laggy on Feb 20, 2012 10:00:49 GMT -5

I really don't know how to feel about this election. I thought it was going to be an easy win for republicans. We have a struggling economy, an unpopular president, and alot of the swing states have been looking awfully red.

But then I look at the candidates. It's a fucking 3 ring circus sideshow. The republicans hate all their candidates, and basically saying "ughhh... Fine.... Romney it is"None of them are likable, and they've all leaned so far right I can't imagine them standing up straight again

Post by A$AP Rosko on Feb 20, 2012 10:02:51 GMT -5

I know some of you probably saw this already, but I'm very impressed with what the two candidates for Senate in Mass. are doing to try and ensure that they get a "clean" race.

For those that don't know, Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren created a "poison pill" agreement regarding negative ads. Neither was sanctioning the muck-slinging ads that were being aired against the opponent, so they agreed that if there are any ads of that nature, the candidate who the ad supported would donate $ out of their own pocket equal in value to the ad in question.

So, if ultra-conservatives paid $1 million to take out an ad slamming Warren, Brown would donate $1 million to a charity.

I was very impressed with how these two took the power away from faceless lobbyist groups, and hope this sets a trend for the future. I doubt it, because it's too good an idea, but there's at least hope.

Don't see stuff like that too often these days. I bet their campaign managers and such were pretty confused when they announced the pact, like "What? You want to win this race fair and square? What the hell are you even talking about?"